DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE-ITS UNIVERSALITY
Anthropologists have been trying to provide a universal definition for the institution of marriage for almost one and a half centuries. The definitions wfiich have been given before 1955, the early definitions, emphasize on the various criteria that are required to constitute a marriage. The definitions of the 19th century anthropologists, the evolutionists, consider that "Marriage is a ritually recognized union between a man and a woman, that the spouses live together and that couple have recognized mutual sexual rights" - Westermark-(1929).
This definition cannot be a universal definition i.e., it cannot be applied to all the societies becausethere are some societies
1. That contract marriages without ritual ceremonies
2. Where the couple do not live under the same roof
3. In which the spouses are permitted to have extra marital sexual rln
In 1st half of 20th century:-
Murdock, "Marriage is a universal institution that involves residential cohabitation, economic cooperation and formation of the nuclear family". exceptional cases - Nayars of Kerala, where the couple do not live under the same roof, there is no life long economic cooperation between-the couple and most important is the absence of the nuclear family structure.
Seligman "a union between a man and a woman such that the children born to the woman are recognized as legitimate offspring of both the parents”. This definition is not satisfactory because if it is true then the union between one man and several women and the union between one woman and several men cannot be recognized as marriage especially when such type of marriages are culturally possible in several societies.
An important point to note in all the definitions is the emphasis on the union between man and а woman. In this context the Nuer of Africa , woman marriages take place between the same sexes. In this type of marriage system, a woman who lost her husband without a male child assumes the role of her late husband and marries another woman. She procures the services of a male kinsman or a friend to beget children through the woman she married. The children born are treated as the children begotten by the widow's deceased husband. Keeping the instances of such societies and such types of marriages anthropologists therefore have been of the view that it is difficult to arrive at a definition that will satisfy the patterns of marriages in all the human societies in the world.
The modern definitions, after 1955
Kathleen Gough "relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under the circumstances not prohibited by the rules of relationship is accorded full birth status rights, common to normal members of his society or the social stratum". This definition does not cover some of the societies like the Azande of Sudan which allow a form of marriage based on homosexuality.
William N. Stephen, "socially legitimate sexual union, began with public pronouncement, undertaken with the idea of permanence. assumed with more or less explicit marriage contract which spells out reciprocal economic obligations between the spouses and the future children ".
This definition also lacks a universal appeal since it ignores many social customs found in the world. Like :-
1. Most societies do have taboo periods during which intercourse between the spouses and their future children is prohibited.
2. Extra marital sexual relationship is allowed in many societies, and marriages do not begin with public pronouncement.
3. There are societies where there are high divorce rates, and there is no idea of permanence in marriage.
4. There are few societies where a union of man and a woman does not involve any marriage contract.
By this discussion it is very clear that a universal definition to the institution of marriage cannot be successfully provided. The problem is further aggravated also because there are some societies where the sexual rights, economic responsibilities and the socialization of the children are not derived from the relationships resulting from marriage, but are part of the rights, duties and responsibilities of groups other than those formed by husband-wife and parent-child relationships.
the Nayars of Kerala, which is hindering them to arrive at a definition of marriage that can be universally applied.
The Nayars are a landowning caste living in the state of Kerala. The Nayar family was not formed through marriage, but consisted rather of male and female kin who have descended from a female ancestor. This household group called the "Taravad" typically contains brothers and sisters, a woman’s daughter and granddaughters, and their children. Taravad property was held jointly in the name of the oldest surviving male. This type of family was related to the system of Nayar marriage.
Traditionally there were two kinds of marriages among the Nayar, the tali-tyinq ceremony and the Sambandham - relationship. Every Nayar girl had to undergo the tali-tying ceremony before she reached puberty; this rite marked a girl’s transition to womanhood. The man who tied the tali to the girl had no further rights in her nor does she have any obligations to him (except that at his death she performs certain rituals'). After this ceremony however, a girl could enter into sambandham unions with a number of different men of the upper caste with whom she would have children. The Taravad however retained rights оver a nayar womans procreative powers and authority over her children. For a child to have full birth rights in the Taravad, a father had to be acknowledged. Any one of the men with whom the woman had a sambandham union could acknowledge paternity by bearing certain expenses associated with the birth of the child. Where paternity was doubtful an assembly of neighbors would attempt to coerce the current "visiting husband" to make the payments. If no man of the appropriate caste would take on the role of father, the woman and child were expelled from the taravad and from the caste because it will be assumed that the woman was having a relationship with a lower caste man. This was considered polluting not only for the woman but for the entire Taravad.
In the Nayar system then, a woman had several "husbands" (sambandham unions), but theresponsibility and care of children were in the hands of a group of brothers and sisters (the Taravad). From the point of view of the woman and her Taravad, polyandry enhanced both individual and group prestige. Polyandry also gave the Nayar women access to men who were in many different occupations, and their services could then be accessible to the Taravad. The Nayar marriage and family system was well suited to the traditional Nayar" occupation of soldiering. Without permanent responsibilities and permanent attachments to wife and children, a young Nayar man was free to pursue a military career. The agricultural land owned by the Nayar Taravad was worked by lower caste landless serfs and managed by an older male, an economic system that also freed younger Nayar men from the necessity of living in the Taravad (Mencher 1965).
any universal definition of marriage would have to be very general indeed to cover all the known variations. Anthropologists are not as interested in such a definition as they once were. Now looking at the kinds of rights that are transferred through marriage in different societies, and the kinds of families and domestic groups that marriage establishes. Our interest in the Nayars then focuses not on whether they have marriage ог not but on the way in which sexual access to women, economic responsibility, and rights over children are legitimized in their society.
No comments:
Post a Comment